:as the plot thickens, so do the puzzle parts expand, intrigue, or become better defined.

The following excerpt appears as a taster from the chronicles.

Please oblige chapter one to deactivate the vast quantities of invisible ink contained between these lines.

This is their story and they're sticking to it, but as always there are two sides to every story. Suffice it to say, that all though their Mr. Tantamount was indeed difficult as perceived, "he" was not the person he claimed to be, but a perverted impostor half brother under the assumed role of the real Mr.Tantamount, who was a loving husband and father having been removed from the scene by underworld trickery. How is this possible you ask? It was easier than smuggling thousands of Samils into the country under assumed names for sure.

page2, Oct. 14, 1988

To summarize the Children's Aid Society's dealings with your family, there is no indication in the files that your parents were forced to live apart or that they were coerced by any outside agency or family member to remain apart. All indications were that Mr. Tantamount was a difficult man to get along with; he was punitive in his relationship with your mother and the children, and your mother finally left him to live on her own, and later to have you children live with her.

Our agency became involved in order to care for you during the time your mother was trying to re-establish her life, obtain employment and a place to live. It did not appear to have ever been a consideration for your mother, to return to live with Mr. Tantamount and have you children return to their joint care.

The Crown ward ship was finally terminated, but in order to do this an Appeal had to be launched as there was no process for review of ward ship or termination under the Child Welfare Act. The Appeal served to terminate the ward ship but also allowed the children to remain in the Children's Aid care for a further period, during which your mother was preparing a home for your return.

We are sorry that you feel we have not been able to help you and we do not believe we could be of further help to you in your quest to prove your mother's claim for Canada Pension. We do hope that you are able to positively conclude your application for reinstatement.

Yours sincerely,

• Yokeshire Tarantula
• Director,
• Management Services.
• :ji
• cc:Mr. Leon Nanbucket, MPP

• initial pleas for help having been presented to the C.A.S. were automatically met by attaining signature's of consent with the means of false pretense and trickery, followed by adamantly engaging Crown Ward ship and adoption procedures via the Child Welfare Act. Proceedings commenced by C.A.S. were strategically timed, and inappropriately handled when notifying and informing the mother to the action just hours before the close of business on a long weekend. Consequently, the hearing date had been overtly pre set to follow said long weekend, in so provocating and manipulating a situation of dictatorship that denied the basic right of representation. As any learned person should know... reasonable and adequate notice concerning legal actions are mandatory, to enable the affiliated party a proper opportunity to obtain and or retain council.
• hence without representation the truth was twisted, claimed as a perjury, and used to discredit her when the mother truthfully disclaimed the then present Mr Tantamount (Difficult) as the father, as well too in otherwise stating Mr Tantamount (the real husband of the same name) as having paternal ties. Avenues of authority (police, C.A.S., Courts) have never acted, recognized or distinguished the fact of two separate entities being involved as one person's identity, either because of their discrimination, disbelief, or an inability to adequately address the situation. More commonly it was just much easier to call every one sick, crazy, or a martyr among other detriments of character.
• the return of these or any such children seized under the Act was then unconditionally removed being that a Reversal of Crown Ward ship in this age is non existent, as it was never challenged and won before us.
• sound advice from a little professional bird perched on a doe within the forest, and being the only recourse resulting of negligent assistance, warrants absolute relinquishment of our home to the monster, and that a residence be established apart from Mr. Difficult, leaving the C.A.S. to fully attest to the present date, "It did not appear to have ever been a consideration for your mother, to return to live with Mr. Tantamount and have you children return to their joint care". It was C.A.S. who made dead sure of that, which is ultimately the point being disguised or side stepped here. The Ladies employment was not an issue other than being related with the monster's interference with the same. As confirmed by local want ads, employment availability is high during the period of time in question. I would again view this as a character attack because, in fact once C.A.S. forcefully relieved her of the children she maintained multiple employment.
• following, the appeal is launched once nullifying the C.A.S. argument for child protection, the only available indisputable vehicle having been the established residence away from the monster / impostor. The appeal was launched by the mother solely for the purpose of regaining her children, and was not in any way to accommodate the alleged agenda of C.A.S. as stated in the context here... "The Appeal served to terminate the ward ship but also allowed the children to remain in the Children's Aid care for a further period, during which your mother was preparing a home for your return". No doubt remains as to why this is their nemesis, regardless of any given omission's and or distortions of the record.
• the appeal was heard and based on the facts that due notice of action was not given the mother. It was also brought to the attention of the Court that a zoologist was not a qualified tester of psychology as had been heard, nor was the testimony of a certain psychologist considered just, because he had not adequately examined or ascertained the conditions but presumably acted on C.A.S. hearsay. That to which he had testified to initially, he subsequently recanted during the appeal. He was never prosecuted for his unlawful part, apparently being under C.A.S. retainer had blanketed or absolved his wrong.
• the presiding judge upon hearing the appeal had over turned the original Crown decision on hearing these submissions, setting precedence and returning the children to their mother, purposely allowing a transition period specifically for the children to re-adjust. Again this context is certainly contrary to the statement... "The Appeal served to terminate the ward ship, but also allowed the children to remain in the Children's Aid care for a further period, during which your mother was preparing a home for your return". Alternatively pointed or prime examples of the blatant overbearing liberties of power, further more this home was indeed already long established, though it was done against C.A.S. wishes before they even knew what had happened, and too it was secured well before the appeal was heard. To make it perfectly clear, there weren't any statements made by any Crown to the effect of preparing a residence for the children's return because, this was indeed previously well established. In fact the whole bureaucratic process had been such a drawn out affair, that while in limbo the residence alternatively served the community as a temporary halfway / boarding house run by the occupant. In essence this headed or was the beginnings of the local  Leonerdos House we have today. The Talk Out House also sprang from this along with a coffee house program. In fact many causes distracted this distraught mother from her worries, such as the Breaker Point.
• proper procedure and protocol was immediately established and implemented as the direct result of the afore mentioned underhanded affairs. Mother would not accept the settlement until such a time that these conditions were satisfactorily signed and secured in a written form, so as to prevent the C.A.S. from reneging as was consistent with their given track record.
• C.A.S. successfully makes a motion to have the case sealed, preventing public knowledge of the affair (no news papers!) in the interest of not tarnishing the much needed image of the C.A.S. in the community.
• father eventually returns to investigate the murder of his brother, oblivious to events, we all forced to succumb to a dictated life in the aftermath of his half brother's (Mr Difficult) betrayals.
• upon the request of the estate many years later, the C.A.. provides for the purpose of probate matters, their disseminated version of the record as witnessed.
• the same disregarded record is presented to Canada Pension Survivor Benefits, discounting any entitlement.
• the self proclaimed "pirate" a brother of the impostor walks off with every treasured thing as the direct result of piecemeal dissemination or this non disclosure of information.